Aionios and olam are applied to both the everlasting and the tempoary in scripture. I gave you one example. There are even examples where olam (and aionious in the LXX) are applied to the consequences of sin that are tempoary according to the immediate context. That makes it vague with respect to determining whether the noun it modifies is everlasting or not.

Quote

Whenever aiwnion is applied to God, to salvation, and to punishment, why would someone think he is saying three different things? MY first reaction is that he is using words that indicate he means.

I don't think He is saying three different things. In all cases I believe God is using a word that means "beyond the horizon" as Hebrew scholars indicate.

Quote

I am not familiar with that scripture reference that speaks of "punishment's end." Can you please supply it for my study?

Oh! NOW I begin to see. We are to study what Jesus intended to say, rather than all those stuffy things he actually DID say. Thanks for a "heads up" on this one.

We should study all of scripture to see what Jesus meant by what He said.

Quote

I think you are mistaking God for God's instruction to Daniel.

He didn't seal up God, He sealed up the words.

Quote

If God is going to hold me accountable for understanding his word, he really must not play word games with me. THAT is not "Godly." That is insanity. I believe he said what he meant for us to understand.

He sealed up the words given to Daniel because it was not given (at least not yet) for Daniel to understand them (Daniel 12:8-9).

Quote

Where? "Shame" is [oneidismon]; "everlastind contemp" is [aisxuneen aiwnion]Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. That will have to be covered in a later post. I'm getting tired now and will call it a day. God bless you and keep you all. And let us find where truth walks in our own day.

NO... you were NOT "right", brother Theo, so please stop patting yourself on the back...

You "guess" incorrectly bro... We all believe in ETERNITY, and in an ETERNAL God which PRECEEDED all of this.

Just because some see things in a way other than do you, does not remove or negate the observation of the principle (Eternity), because said observation is NOT in line with YOUR present vision of it.

ETERNITY means NO BEGINNING as well as NO END, as CHB has pointed out... It does NOT mean, "from NOW -- on"... which is how most Christians observe it to be.

JESUS noted: BEFORE Abraham WAS [time designation with beginning].. I AM [apart from time]

The WORD, having NO BEGINNING already IS (in place)... prior to TIME'S creation, in which Abraham eventually appeared.

We are FINITE, and in our present state, God has imposed upon us... a FINITE ability to understand/comprehend. Which confines us to TIME and its limitations, and which... in that TEMPORAL condition, is unable to truly and/or COMPLETELY comprehend/behold the ETERNAL setting.

When any FINITE attempts to apply an INFINITE [eternal] application to any (including him/herself) FINITE entity, he/she has stepped OUTSIDE his/her own ability to comprehend... and accordingly shall fail to convey TRUTH concerning this misplaced and invalid application....

For that one is unable to EXPLAIN the unlimited parameters of ETERNITY (which have NO BEGINNING or END), because he/she does not even understand this him/herself. Rendering his/her application of it to him/herself OR another, ...INVALID...

Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 --until--the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer. 49:6).

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever"-until--the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", that is -until-- they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), that is,--until the Temple was destroyed.

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until--Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual"-- until-- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13). written by Gary of Tentmaker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are many more uses of the words eternal and forever that cannot possibly be the right words for the verses they are used in.If the words eternal and forever that are used in these verses are the actual meanings in these verses how do you explain why they are not still prevalent today?

Take this verse for example: (Lev. 23:41) And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall BE A STATUE FOR EVER {then it says "in your generations"} Which is it "forever" or just in "their generations"? Do you see a problem here?

You know what Theo, God did send you here to teach us something and you to learn something also. I believe we learn from all sources.

You can bet your bottom dollar you are here for some reason that only God knows at this time.

By the way Theo, I don't believe I read what your beliefs are. If you have said I must have missed them. Just what do you believe about punishment and salvation?

CHB

I don't think God sent me here to teach. I think God sent me here to learn if Universal Salvation is truth. There is a difference. between learning truth through asking questions, and teaching through making statements. I offer a combination when I ask a question, and upon receiving a response, make a statement about the response.

What are my beliefs? They are forbidden on this board. THAT is why you have not heard them.

MOD NOTE (per Theo's suggestion) - Hi Theo. It actually appears to me that you have already told us a lot of what you believe through your arguments against UR.

I truly don't know how to open this up any more without getting into outright open debating of discouraged terminology. I really don't think we have to, because again, things can be (and have been already) discussed in detail without focusing on distracting, enflaming, and man-made words/phrases that aren't even in the scriptures.

I have perceived from your posts that you believe a) there is not UR b) there may be/probably is a "hell" [or eternal punishement/separation of some sort] c) mankind has control of "making all the right decisions", d) if he doesn't, in the end he is lost forever (although you may not be settled on what that will look like exactly) e) people who believe in UR can be a Christian, but are likely teaching error f) God has a will that can be overpowered by man's will, sog) God does not always "get his way"e) you do want to defend your position rather than be completely open to learning

Please feel free to correct/explain any of this - these are my perceptions of what you've been saying - be as specific as you want to be about what you believe. Ensuing discussion will be moderated determinant upon direction of discussion, focus, spirit, attitude, likely usefulness to the body (strife, dischord, personal attacks) etc. James.

Aionios and olam are applied to both the everlasting and the tempoary in scripture. I gave you one example. There are even examples where olam (and aionious in the LXX) are applied to the consequences of sin that are tempoary according to the immediate context. That makes it vague with respect to determining whether the noun it modifies is everlasting or not.

Quote

Whenever aiwnion is applied to God, to salvation, and to punishment, why would someone think he is saying three different things? MY first reaction is that he is using words that indicate he means.

I don't think He is saying three different things. In all cases I believe God is using a word that means "beyond the horizon" as Hebrew scholars indicate.

Quote

I am not familiar with that scripture reference that speaks of "punishment's end." Can you please supply it for my study?

Oh! NOW I begin to see. We are to study what Jesus intended to say, rather than all those stuffy things he actually DID say. Thanks for a "heads up" on this one.

We should study all of scripture to see what Jesus meant by what He said.

Quote

I think you are mistaking God for God's instruction to Daniel.

He didn't seal up God, He sealed up the words.

Quote

If God is going to hold me accountable for understanding his word, he really must not play word games with me. THAT is not "Godly." That is insanity. I believe he said what he meant for us to understand.

He sealed up the words given to Daniel because it was not given (at least not yet) for Daniel to understand them (Daniel 12:8-9).

Quote

Where? "Shame" is [oneidismon]; "everlastind contemp" is [aisxuneen aiwnion]Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Hi rosie. Not exactly sure what you're responding to my dear friend. What I was specifically addressing is if we were to start getting into the specific "freewill/sovereignty" debate - and that was based on lego's request of Theo to state what she believes, then Theo saying it wasn't allowed on the boads and she wanted a "moderator's OK on it". As a mod, I was just sensing the possibilities of where things could head and using an ounce of prevention ("worth a pound of cure" ).

As do you, I also believe discussion is good, and that's what the boards are for. I don't want to derail the thread with technicalities, but I personally don't believe that general arguing is beneficial - or at least I believe it should have its limits - "let everything be done decently and in order" I Cor. 14:40 and Titus 3:2 "to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious [divisive] man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." IMO, that is part of "the Lord doing His thing" - as you said, He's let us know. Personal Note - Regarding "live peaceably with all men as much as is possible" - you're one of the best .

So no, let's not cut off the discussion, that's not what I was suggesting. In fact, I was requesting Theo clarify her position as requested by legoman.

Ok ,,, Thanks James for the clarity on your positon and I know moderating can be tough , I would never be able to do this , knowing the way i am ,

its just that i thought it was going to be stopped just like the Judas thread was , yesterday , when the thread gets off track , and the personal frustrations come between folks , it seems that there is nothing else to do , but cut it off /nip it in the bud

the discussion about anion and olam and the things CHB and Theo and Bob and Paul etc brought out are amazing to me and so simple I can "get it " in my feartd I thought this was going to be shut down too

my apologies for jumping the gun and assuming that was the case I understand that "free will "and sovereignty" is taboo

and hard to get around sometimes when the Ol Adam thing is brought up and out

I am so glad your keeping this going for I am learning lots here at TM an do feel that learning is what God has blessed his people with , learning of Him and what His desire is for us all

the Wisdom along with the knowledge of Him

the "full knowledge " precise and correct" knowledge in Love , its the kind that makes us all come together in ways that nothing else can mixed with faith of course ... Strong's G1922 - epignōsis

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Eph 1:19 And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],

Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church,

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. That will have to be covered in a later post. I'm getting tired now and will call it a day. God bless you and keep you all. And let us find where truth walks in our own day.

NO... you were NOT "right", brother Theo, so please stop patting yourself on the back...

You "guess" incorrectly bro... We all believe in ETERNITY, and in an ETERNAL God which PRECEEDED all of this.

Just because some see things in a way other than do you, does not remove or negate the observation of the principle (Eternity), because said observation is NOT in line with YOUR present vision of it.

ETERNITY means NO BEGINNING as well as NO END, as CHB has pointed out... It does NOT mean, "from NOW -- on"... which is how most Christians observe it to be.

JESUS noted: BEFORE Abraham WAS [time designation with beginning].. I AM [apart from time]

The WORD, having NO BEGINNING already IS (in place)... prior to TIME'S creation, in which Abraham eventually appeared.

We are FINITE, and in our present state, God has imposed upon us... a FINITE ability to understand/comprehend. Which confines us to TIME and its limitations, and which... in that TEMPORAL condition, is unable to truly and/or COMPLETELY comprehend/behold the ETERNAL setting.

When any FINITE attempts to apply an INFINITE [eternal] application to any (including him/herself) FINITE entity, he/she has stepped OUTSIDE his/her own ability to comprehend... and accordingly shall fail to convey TRUTH concerning this misplaced and invalid application....

For that one is unable to EXPLAIN the unlimited parameters of ETERNITY (which have NO BEGINNING or END), because he/she does not even understand this him/herself. Rendering his/her application of it to him/herself OR another, ...INVALID...

May God bless within His wisdom, and keep you as well...

...willieH

With respect WH, I cannot respond at this time because your post deals with some issues that are banned, and without Moderator's approval, I will not deal with it. Specifically, your remark about Abraham in John 8 and "beginnings." It all has to do with trinitarianism doctrine developed in John 1:1.

Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 --until--the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer. 49:6).

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever"-until--the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", that is -until-- they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), that is,--until the Temple was destroyed.

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until--Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual"-- until-- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13). written by Gary of Tentmaker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are many more uses of the words eternal and forever that cannot possibly be the right words for the verses they are used in.If the words eternal and forever that are used in these verses are the actual meanings in these verses how do you explain why they are not still prevalent today?

Take this verse for example: (Lev. 23:41) And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall BE A STATUE FOR EVER {then it says "in your generations"} Which is it "forever" or just in "their generations"? Do you see a problem here?

Theo, how would you explain this? CHB

I wouldn't until after I had studied it in depth. I do see that there is a problem, but I am not sure as to its proper identification, YET! I will be contemplating over the week end, and as far beyond as it takes. Any other information you have to offer will be welcome as long as you don't overwhelm me.

Theo, if you'll look at my last several posts to you, you may find the answers to some of your apparent dilemmas regarding what you keep referencing as an inability to discuss due to moderation/site restrictions/requirements. I believe your concerns have been addressed -

Theo Book

Clarification to all on the board - Theo is short for Theophilus, as in Theophilus Book, and my wife is still laughing at me for some on the board (not your fault) think I am supposed to be the "wife." She knows better, and now, so do you. And please, no apologies, for something you have not done wrong. I am not offended. Just though you'd like to know.

You know what Theo, God did send you here to teach us something and you to learn something also. I believe we learn from all sources.

You can bet your bottom dollar you are here for some reason that only God knows at this time.

By the way Theo, I don't believe I read what your beliefs are. If you have said I must have missed them. Just what do you believe about punishment and salvation?

CHB

I don't think God sent me here to teach. I think God sent me here to learn if Universal Salvation is truth. There is a difference. between learning truth through asking questions, and teaching through making statements. I offer a combination when I ask a question, and upon receiving a response, make a statement about the response.

What are my beliefs? They are forbidden on this board. THAT is why you have not heard them.

MOD NOTE (per Theo's suggestion) - Hi Theo. It actually appears to me that you have already told us a lot of what you believe through your arguments against UR.

Truth be told, I think I have told you more about what I DON'T believe, and I don't bleieve what I have not studied in depth for myself. MY Study focus fro over fifty years has been Trinity doctrine, as I have suggested, and it ties in with some of the remarks offered in evidence by USALV proponents. And my arguments are not "against UR (I thought it was US; What's the "R?").

Quote

I truly don't know how to open this up any more without getting into outright open debating of discouraged terminology. I really don't think we have to, because again, things can be (and have been already) discussed in detail without focusing on distracting, enflaming, and man-made words/phrases that aren't even in the scriptures.

Agreed! But then you will find that my focus on trinity required that I understand many terms not found in scriptures.

Quote

I have perceived from your posts that you believe a) there is not UR b) there may be/probably is a "hell" [or eternal punishement/separation of some sort] c) mankind has control of "making all the right decisions", d) if he doesn't, in the end he is lost forever (although you may not be settled on what that will look like exactly) e) people who believe in UR can be a Christian, but are likely teaching error f) God has a will that can be overpowered by man's will, sog) God does not always "get his way"e) you do want to defend your position rather than be completely open to learning

Please feel free to correct/explain any of this - these are my perceptions of what you've been saying - be as specific as you want to be about what you believe. Ensuing discussion will be moderated determinant upon direction of discussion, focus, spirit, attitude, likely usefulness to the body (strife, dischord, personal attacks) etc. James.

o.k.a) there is not UR - Ans:Right! I am not taking the position UR is incorrect, I just am not convinced YET that it IS.

b) there may be/probably is a "hell" [or eternal punishement/separation of some sort] Ans: I know there is a helol, but it is the grave. I do not know of any pit of fire other than that in which angels are kept in and maybe is reserved for wicked men.

c) mankind has control of "making all the right decisions", Ans: Absolutely NOT. Man is very capable of making very WRONG decisions, but is free to act upon them, bringing the wrath of God upon them for their decision and followup activities.

d) if he doesn't, in the end he is lost forever (although you may not be settled on what that will look like exactly) Ans: I think I am beginning to see a difference in this one, though it relates to the prior one. I did not remember seeing the Lamentations 3 verse before, and it has a focus necessary at least for consideration. If there are others similar, i will see them also.

e) people who believe in UR can be a Christian, but are likely teaching error Ans: I believe this one only if I am appointed Judge by my maker. ONLY God knows them that are his. I hope he knows me among the number. And you.

f) God has a will that can be overpowered by man's will, soAns: Not at all. Since he made me in his image and gave me free will, I am empowered to exercise that will after contemplating both sides of the issue it pends. When I exercise myown free will, I should attampt to be directly in line with God's will in all things. THAT is what I understand HIS will to be. When I don't, and mess up, it is MY fault, not God's, which makes it a result of MY will, not that God's will is overpowered, rather it is resisted [Acts 7:51], and I will be revisited in my decisions.

g) God does not always "get his way"Ans: This is a misnomer. "His way" is what John the Baptist was sent to return the people of god back to. "His Way" is what Jesus preached for three and a half years. The only "way" I know of from scripture is -

Jdgs 2:22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.

2 Kings 21:22 And he forsook the LORD God of his fathers, and walked not in the way of the LORD.

Mat 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

e) you do want to defend your position rather than be completely open to learningAns: Hey, I want to be correct every time I open my mouth. Is that different from other men? I just do not think that should interfere with learning GOD'sTRUTH. Do YOU? And how can one learn truth if not comepletely open to truth?

I have my biases just as you and every person who reads or posts on this board. But I think there are many good hearts here, and I would never tell them "You think you are always right" unless I thought it was a good thing. And I do so think. Why would anyone post something they think is not right? In your posting, don't yopu think you are always right?

I most certainly do. Why make it sound like a fault.

I just do not let my eternal salvation rest on yesterday's understanding. I will, as long as God gives me breath, continue to re-evaluate what I absolutely positively KNOW to be truth, and by nightfall, may know something entirely different than what I absolutely positively KNEW this morning. It is taught in scripture "here a little, there a little, line upon line," and "Be still and know that I am God." All others are in learning mode.

Same word as that used in Mat 25:46, and used to describe both punishment and salvation. Are you implying it now has THREE meanings?

athanasia (immortality) is not in matthew 25:46.

Right! What's your point? I was addressing "aiwnion" which is in both reference verses.

I am pointing out that the eternal nature of God isn't determined by the word aionios in the first place.

I think the "nature" of God is determined by the totallity of what we are given by God for study.1 Timothy 1:17 is part of it; - "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God..."Hebrews 9:14 is part of it; - "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit..." 1 Pet 5:10 is part of it: - "...the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory

I do not depend upon that entirely for that would be foolish and leave out much of scripture, but I certainly must consider it in part.

Logged

Theo Book

Theo, if you'll look at my last several posts to you, you may find the answers to some of your apparent dilemmas regarding what you keep referencing as an inability to discuss due to moderation/site restrictions/requirements. I believe your concerns have been addressed -

Theo Book

Theo, if you'll look at my last several posts to you, you may find the answers to some of your apparent dilemmas regarding what you keep referencing as an inability to discuss due to moderation/site restrictions/requirements. I believe your concerns have been addressed -

I have been thinking about this and will offer you a possible solution. Suppose I post my thoughts on some matters, you and others decide if they are worth your while pondering, and if you like I can include my e-mail address for correspondance, because I will not be responding to those who respond to the post without a moderator requesting it.

This way, I can offer my understanding. those interested can evaluate it for themselves, and unless a moderator requests it, there will be no further communication on that particular issue. At least you will know why it is an issue with me. My ego is not such that it requires stroking that much, so I will follow your lead in this matter.

Also, I may be wrong about many little details. I believe I was wrong about ET [not a little detail ], and had little idea - although I think I did wonder for a long time. Anyway, that's why I often post as in my opinion, as I understand it, perhaps, is it possible, etc.

Aionios and olam are applied to both the everlasting and the tempoary in scripture. I gave you one example. There are even examples where olam (and aionious in the LXX) are applied to the consequences of sin that are temporary according to the immediate context.

Sorry I missed this one, but since you said you had answered all my questions, I went looking for it. I shall attempt to respond with kindness to some hostility I perceive in your remarks. Or is it simply immaturity on your part?

There is no "hostility" involved, just diagreement with your observations of the WORD.

The reason for the "trollish" comment, is that many come here and flood the board with ET proposals... just baiting the membership here, instead of actually seeking a good discussion in which either side might benefit and learn...

As far as "immaturity"... ...this is hardly a problem in my life bro... I am 64, having had a lifetime in which I have raised 3 fine children, and am amidst helping rear 10 grandkids.

Just because I try to elminate potentially applicable motives for disruptive people, does not equate to "immaturity"...

I don't even know what that terminology [trolling] means. I have seen it on several boards, but no one has ever applied it to my posts before. mind explaining it?

A "troll" is one which comes with a motive of disruption. Seeking to taunt, and procure attention for him/herself... baiting the membership of a given set of beliefs, by waving opposition before them which has no purpose other than disruption.

In case it comes up later, this is the remark I identified as "hostility in your remarks"

Quote

"as freely as you have "OPENED your MOUTH"(Capitals YOURS for emphasis)

Many come SPEAKING, few come LISTENING... by you even bothering to answer my request that you reply to my questions, to some degree, removes that.

I apologize if you found it offensive. I have been a member here 7 or 8 years, and have experienced so many which consider themselves "enlightened", and are firm ET preachers, that I at times react early rather than later to the junk they try to peddle in the name of the GOSPEL.

(WH)

Quote from: willieH

The question I have for you, TB... is shall you LEARN from this failure to refute "UR", or will you attempt to sidestep it?

(TB)I have prepared a sort of questionaire to Universalists - Answer me please;

1) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And If Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, [Gen 3:6] in the garden, it must have been God's will.

(WH)YES -- YHVH God works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of HIS OWN WILL -- Eph 1:11

(TB) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And If Eve gave to her husband, Adam, and he did eat, also, [Gen 3:6] it must have been God's will.

(WH) YES (see # 1) -- also... this event is IN the WORD, and the WORD which preceeded the event, must needs occur as noted IN the WORD which preceeded the event...

(TB) 3) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And if cain killed Able, [Gen 4:8] it must have been God's will.

YES (see #1) -- also... the "murder" of Abel is part of the WORD which does NOT CHANGE... and so that "murder" which was PART of the THINGS NOT YET DONE -- Isaiah 46:10 -- had to occur, for the Scriptures [WORD] -- CANNOT be BROKEN -- John 10:34 -- the WORD has NO VARIANCE -- James 1:17 -- and is the SAME, yesterday, today and forever -- Heb 13:8

Why would you quote Isaiah to demonstrate something about the conversation in the garden? I will now quote another covenant to demonstrate a principal that applies to every day since creation; "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." Adam was not accountable for every word of God since the world began. He was accountable for the sin of disobedience to specific instructions about a specific act of obedience/disobedience.

FIRST --- Obviously you have not considered what Isaiah 46:10 actually proposes brother... the "things that are NOT DONE"... Includes EVERYTHING which has been "done"... which also includes the murder of Abel by Cain... as well as Adam and Eve partaking of forbidden cuisine.

SECOND --- That the WORD has not been given to man, does not negate it's activity, within his experience... The WORD stands as ONE entity... and though ADAM was not given the instruction that the "wages of sin is DEATH"... did not stop this TRUTH from enabling itself in his circumstances... Matter of fact...

ADAM was not even told that his potential "disobedience" wasSIN... Was he?

SIN ...is... transgression of the LAW... that the LAW had not yet been given to man (Adam & his descendents), does not mean that it has not been transgressed! Cain killed Abel... and yet there was NO GOVERNING LAW in place, as disclosed by the WORD of GOD, that this act was "SIN"... Does that mean that Cain's act was NOT SIN? Or that the act was NOT TRANSGRESSION of the LAW?

And if nothing was "imputed"... why was CAIN banished?

The WORD notes that SIN in fact, ENTERED through ADAM -- Rom 5:12 -- even though the LAW had yet to be given...

4) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And if the sons of God came in unto the daughter's of men, [Gen 6:4] it must have been God's will.

(WH)

Quote from: willieH

YES (see #1) -- also... God made woman, to be an HELP, ...meet to MAN, without qualification (in every way) -- Gen 2:20 -- That "help" was not limited or described, so it stands as "help" in every way that MAN needed "help"... do you doubt the WORD which states this?

Your responses are bordering on the edge of phantasy. It is not the word of God I doubt, but it is your application of that word of God. I am beginning to think you have no idea whatsoever about what scripture teaches.

The Pharisees ("religious" of their day) "heard" (or rather didn't "hear") with DEAF EARS... some things NEVER CHANGE...

FIRST --- It is not my concern what you think! ...I have been diligently studying the Scriptures since 1976... so please, abstain from supposing upon things, of which you have no idea whatsoever.

SECOND --- As far as "fantasy" is concerned... you, dear brother, are aligned with the MANY which follow said pathway -- Matt 24:5 -- thinking yourself knowledgeable, as you wallow in the midst of your "deception" which MISLEADS MANY...

5) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And if every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,[Gen 6:5] it must have been God's will.

(WH)YES (see #1) -- also... God sends man into CAPTIVITY -- Jer 29:14 -- that He might DELIVER him FROM IT... as well as CONCLUDE ALL in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- that He might have MERCY upon ALL -- are you getting any of this, TB?

I know why you are laughing. You don't believe it either. NO MAN ever begot a son, only to subject him to humiliation of temptation of flesh, subject him to unbelief, subject him to disobedience, just so you as his dear old daddy, can offer him a chance to repent.

[Mod Edit]Trying to equate the doings of MEN, with GOD's doings...

I have quoted SCRIPTURE which supports what I claim... and all you do is reply with empty words of your own, failing to note Scriptural support of them.

it is monstrous in the extreme, and to accuse God of so behaving is unbelievable. All that dows is how that you do not comprehend whaqt the scriptures are actually saying, so you take one sound bite out of context so you can present your mangled view of reality.

Mangled? Please!

As I have already noted to you... MANY of a similar RELIGIOUS position as you occupy, have been here, and gone... basically without spirtually affecting ANYONE here.

You esteem your knowledge to hold truth, but quite the opposite is TRUE...

FIRST --- No one has "accused God" of anything. I have noted the WORD which SAYS that GOD sent His people into CAPTIVITY... and all you can say to that is "unbelieveable"...

A SCRIPTURELESS self-admission which shows the LACK of FAITH that is necessary to BELIEVE what the WORD actually SAYS...

SECOND --- As DO many of the THEOLOGY of Babylon, so DO YOU... demanding "CONTEXT" when the WORD makes no such demand.

*** Please quote ONE VERSE in the ENTIRE Bible, that notes the DEMAND of CONTEXT.

Don't get me wrong bro... the setting in which PRINCIPLES of the WORD are placed is important to the entities addressed... but these PRINCIPLES are NOT IMPRISONED by RELIGIOUS persons such as yourself who would CONFINE them to said "addressees"...

If we were to take YOUR (I say "your" because YOU have demanded CONTEXT) FOOLISH demand of "CONTEXT"... then the letters of PAUL were written ONLY to those in Corinth, or Phillipi or Ephesus or Galatia... eh?

The CONTEXT of these was not written to you! YOU were not of these communities! ...so in your demand... you must also DEMAND it INAPPLICABLE to you... for YOU were not of those ADDRESSED!

How is THAT for ridiculousness? ...well it is about as ridiculous as you demanding DIVINE principles remain IN CONTEXT.

As I said... when you ESTABLISH a SCRIPTURAL DIRECTIVE which demands CONTEXT, then I shall have to reconsider what I have just said. If you DON'T... then your DEMAND is garbage, and full of itself, not the WORD.

6) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And if the men of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked before the Lord, [Gen 13:13] it must have been God's will

(WH) YES (see #1) -- also... GOD created EVIL as well as GOOD -- Isaiah 45:7 -- and the KNOWLEDGE of IT, is HIS -- Gen 3:22 -- to have KNOWLEDGE of IT, must therefore be a DIVINE thing... which MANY (likely such as yourself), think to be OPPOSING DIVINITY!

Paul was accused of saying we must do evil so good can result, and he called it "slander;"

Rom 3:8 "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come..." You have now slandered God.

FIRST -- In what way have I "slandered" God? By noting that HE created EVIL? The WORD so says... no "slander" in quoting its PLAINLY stated WORDS.

SECOND -- You continue to FOOL yourself with your doctrine bro... GOD has the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... it is NOT SLANDEROUS to note His own CREATION of it -- Isaiah 45:7 -- and it is a characteristic of the DIVINE as noted in Gen 2:22

If the KNOWLEDGE was NOT to be learned, ...then it would NOT have been placed in proximity to MAN, nor MAN in proximity to it... nor would GOD have announced that PROXIMITY.

GOD remains responsible for the fact that MAN has come to KNOW "good and evil"... for HE enabled its access, and informed man OF IT, and INTENDED that he KNOW it.

You are welcome to FOOL yourself all you like. [Mod Edit](WH)

Quote from: willieH

How could something which is INHERENT within the Heart of GOD (knowledge of G & E), be OTHER than DIVINE, TB?

I guess probably the same way any other God can deal proudly, because of what is in his heart. Exodus 18:11 "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all Gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them."

There you go, "guessing" again Theo... [Mod Edit]

(tb)

Quote from: TB

7) If God's will cannot be frustrated; And If Saul disobeyed God, to spare the Amelekites, [1Sam 13:13-14] it must have been God's will. (Note:"...for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue. The phrase "for now WOULD the Lord is the same as "it WAS the Lord's WILL. Saul's disobedience CHANGED the Lord's will for Saul; But it was God's will that his will be thwarted.

Theo... the use of the word FOREVER is invalid... and your refusal to observe this, is the beginning of, and the foundational downfall of your teachings...

I did answer this... you just do not accept the answer I gave you.

(WH)

Quote from: willieH

(1) use or translation of the word "forever" is INVALID, for until one can COMPLETELY define the word -- (which includes WITHOUT BEGINNING -- by explaining how something has NO BEGINNING, to include why and how that, ...IS?)... Use of the word FOREVER by any finite which does not comprehend said meaning, is therefore INVALID.

Why. Because you declared it so? WHATEVER meaning is to be applied to aiwnion salvation, is also to be applied to aiwnion punishment. "And these shall go away into aiwnion [everlasting] punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion [eternal]." [Mat 25:46]

FIRST --- I have already offered you to EXPLAIN with COMPREHENSION, why and how ANYTHING -- HAS NO BEGINNING... I must have missed your EXPLANATION. Could you REPEAT it for me?

IOW... if you are unable to DEFINE and CONVEY the COMPLETE meaning of a word, then your usage is FOUL, INADAQUATE and FOOLISH. Not to mention UNNACCEPTABLE.

SECOND --- If something is FOR EVER... then it has ALWAYS BEEN / IS / ALWAYS WILL BE... so the "punishment" you proclaim with the word "aionion"... means that whatever you attach to it (man)... that this man has NEVER been, IS and never WILL BE, in ANY other scenario other than being PUNISHED. How ridiculous is this?

SALVATION is NOT necessary to be an ETERNAL thing... it is a VEHICLE in which we RETURN to where and when WE EMERGED -- ETERNITY... We shall not stay in the "vehicle" of SALVATION... we shall RETURN with JOY to JOY, realizing by the experience we have had in this life, how GREAT, the JOY of YHVH really ...IS...

[Mod Edit](WH)

Quote from: willieH

(2) GOD shall establish ISRAEL for ever, ...for "ISRAEL" are His Sons, which are without beginning or end... For ALL His SONS were WITH Him, BEFORE entering this realm -- Luke 15:11-32 -- Job 38:7

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. That will have to be covered in a later post. I'm getting tired now and will call it a day. God bless you and keep you all. And let us find where truth walks in our own day.

NO... you were NOT "right", brother Theo, so please stop patting yourself on the back...

You "guess" incorrectly bro... We all believe in ETERNITY, and in an ETERNAL God which PRECEEDED all of this.

Just because some see things in a way other than do you, does not remove or negate the observation of the principle (Eternity), because said observation is NOT in line with YOUR present vision of it.

ETERNITY means NO BEGINNING as well as NO END, as CHB has pointed out... It does NOT mean, "from NOW -- on"... which is how most Christians observe it to be.

JESUS noted: BEFORE Abraham WAS [time designation with beginning]... I AM [apart from time]

The WORD, having NO BEGINNING already IS (in place)... prior to TIME'S creation, in which Abraham eventually appeared.

We are FINITE, and in our present state, God has imposed upon us... a FINITE ability to understand/comprehend. Which confines us to TIME and its limitations, and which... in that TEMPORAL condition, is unable to truly and/or COMPLETELY comprehend/behold the ETERNAL setting.

When any FINITE attempts to apply an INFINITE [eternal] application to any (including him/herself) FINITE entity, he/she has stepped OUTSIDE his/her own ability to comprehend... and accordingly shall fail to convey TRUTH concerning this misplaced and invalid application....

For that one is unable to EXPLAIN the unlimited parameters of ETERNITY (which have NO BEGINNING or END), because he/she does not even understand this him/herself. Rendering his/her application of it to him/herself OR another, ...INVALID...

With respect WH, I cannot respond at this time because your post deals with some issues that are banned, and without Moderator's approval, I will not deal with it. Specifically, your remark about Abraham in John 8 and "beginnings." It all has to do with trinitarianism doctrine developed in John 1:1.

With respect...

What a cop out! The "TRINITY" has nothing whatsoever to do with my post, and said "cop out" is unacceptable excuse employed by you, due to the LACK of understanding of words you freely use and DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

EXPLAIN ETERNITY... to include HOW and WHY GOD has NO BEGINNING... ...If you cannot, then you (or anyone else) INVALIDLY use any of the following words: FOR EVER... EVERLASTING... ETERNITY... and ETERNAL... for they cannot be DEFINED in FINITE terminolgy with COMPREHENSION, to FINITE minds...

And btw... John 1:1 has NOTHING to do with any UNBIBLICAL "trinity"...